Explaining‘I Can’t Draw’: Parallels between the Structure and Development of Language and Drawing - Paper

Oct 23, 2026

Both drawing and language are presented as core, human-specific representational systems for expressing concepts. The paper argues drawing development is structurally analogous to language development: drawings combine patterned schemas stored in a graphic lexicon using rule-like, syntactic processes. Development depends on acquiring this schema vocabulary through environmental exposure and practice; limited input can leave an impoverished but persistent system. Evidence is contrasted with language’s critical period and with cross-cultural differences, including Japan’s comic-copying exposure.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages26

Reading Time1 h 6 min

AccessFree to download

Key argument and abstract overview

Drawing as a representational system

Analogy between drawing and language structure

Development and critical-period exposure

Cross-cultural evidence and comic imitation

Alternative views of drawing development

Human Development 2012;55:167–192 DOI: 10. 1159/000341842 Explaining‘I Can’t Draw’: Parallels between the Structure and Development of Language and Drawing Neil Cohn Tufts University, Medford, Mass., USA KeyWords Art 􀀂 Art education 􀀂 Drawing 􀀂 Imitation 􀀂 Language development Abstract Both drawing and language are fundamental and unique to humans as a species. Just as language is a representational system that uses systematic sounds (or manual/ bodily signs) to express concepts, drawing is a means of graphically expressing concepts. Yet, unlike language, we consider it normal for people not to learn to draw, and consider those who do to be exceptional. Why do we consider drawing to be so different from language? This paper argues that the structure and development of drawing is indeed analogous to that of language. Because drawings express concepts in the visual-graphic modality using patterned schemas stored in a graphic lexicon that combine using ‘syntactic’ rules, development thus requires acquiring a vocabulary of these schemas from the environment. Without sufficient practice and exposure to an external system, a basic system persists despite arguably impoverished developmental conditions. Such a drawing system is parallel to the resilient systems of language that appear when children are not exposed to a linguistic system within a critical developmental period. Overall, this approach draws equivalence between drawing and the cognitive attributes of other domains of human expression. Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel Along with speaking and gesturing, drawing is a representational system for expressing concepts that is fundamental – and unique – to humans as a species. However, despite this primacy, we conceive of the structure and development of drawing as very different from language. Language development has been viewed as Fax +41 61 306 12 34 [E-Mail karger@karger.ch](E-Mail karger@karger.ch)[ ](E-Mail karger@karger.ch)[www.karger.com](www.karger.com) © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel 0018–716X/12/0554–0167$38.00/0 Accessible online at: [www.karger.com/hde](www.karger.com/hde) Neil Cohn Department of Psychology, Tufts University 490 Boston Ave. Medford, MA 02155 (USA) [E-Mail neilcohn @ emaki.net](E-Mail neilcohn @ emaki.net) an innate capacity for acquiring an external system of schematic patterns from a community. Development progresses within a critical period that lasts until puberty, after which the ability to learn language rapidly declines [e.g., Lenneberg, 1967; Newport, 1990]. We consider it the norm for people to acquire language and the exception for people who do not. In contrast, drawing development has been viewed as the growth of an individualistic skill of which some are more or less proficient. From birth until puberty, children consistently improve in drawing ability [Kindler & Darras, 1997; Lowenfeld, 1947; Willats, 2005], but they face a ‘period of oppression’ between ages 11 and 14, when their progression abruptly slows and stagnates [e.g., Davis, 1997c; Davis & Gardner, 1992; Gardner, 1980, 1990; Read, 1958; Rosenblatt & Winner, 1988]. This drop-off has been attributed to a lack of interest or motivation [Arnheim, 1997; Read, 1958]. Those that overcome this stagnation are believed to have either some innate talent for artistry or to have worked diligently to overcome it [Davis, 1997c]. If not surpassed, an individual’s drawing ability will remain the same throughout later life [Kindler & Darras, 1997], with progress becoming significantly more difficult. Unlike language, we consider it normal for people not to learn to draw and label those who do as ‘gifted’ or ‘talented’. Despite the conception of drawing as universally accessible but requiring additional stimulation and effort to progress past puberty, this course of development does not seem to appear in all cultures. Children in Japan do not stagnate in their drawing ability [Toku, 1998, 2001a, 2001b; Wilson, 19

FAQs

How does the paper compare drawing and language as representational systems?

Both drawing and language are treated as representational systems for expressing concepts. The paper emphasizes an analogy in how each system expresses meaning and develops over time.

What mechanism does the paper propose for drawing development?

Drawing development is argued to rely on acquiring vocabulary-like patterned schemas from the environment. These schemas are combined using rules analogous to syntactic processes.

Why does limited exposure affect drawing development according to the paper?

Without sufficient practice and exposure to an external system, the paper argues a basic drawing system can persist despite impoverished developmental conditions. This is compared to resilient language systems that emerge when children lack exposure during a critical period.

Oct 23, 2026

Upload by supergirl